The court affirmed that under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme, the State is liable for the payment of retiral benefits to employees, and the appellant cannot shift this burden due to its litigation conduct.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Private College¹ [Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith] covered under the Grant-in-Aid scheme of the State Government has filed the present appeal impugning the orders passed by the High Court² [High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad] dated 26.07.2022³ [Letters Patent Appeal Number 1456 of 2010] and 21.04.2023.⁴ [Miscellaneous Civil Application (for Review) Number 01 of 2022]

3. At the time of hearing, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he only wishes to press the claim regarding liability of the appellant-college to pay retiral benefits to the respondent-employee.

4. Briefly noticed, the facts are that the respondent no. 2 was appointed as lecturer by the appellant. On account of certain misconduct, he was issued a chargesheet on 07.08.1993. After inquiry, he was dismissed from service on 06.06.1994.

4.1 Aggrieved by the dismissal, the respondent no. 2 preferred an appeal to the Joint Director of Higher Education (appellate authority). The said appeal was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 15.11.1994.

4.2 By order dated 20.03.1996, in an application⁵ [Special Civil Application Number 12822 of 1994] filed by the respondent no. 2 before the High Court, his appeal before the Joint Director of Higher Education was held to be maintainable and the same was directed to be heard by appellate authority-respondent no. 1. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 21.08.1996.

4.3 Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred an application⁶ [Special Civil Application No. 7111 of 1996] before the High Court where the above said order was set aside and the matter was directed to be heard afresh vide order dated 07.10.1996. Thereafter vide order dated 02.03.2000, the appeal filed by the private respondent was allowed by appellate authority. He was directed to be reinstated as the dismissal was found to be an extreme punishment.

5. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court by filing an application.⁷ [Special Civil Application Number 4357 of 2000]. The Learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.06.2010, noticing the fact that the private respondent had already superannuated, upheld the order of reinstatement passed in the aforesaid appeal. However, the High Court directed the appellant to pay back wages to the extent of 75%. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant by filing Letters Patent Appeal.⁸ [Appeal No. 1456 of 2010]. Vide order dated 26.07.2022, the appeal was disposed of while passing the following directions:

“Private respondent No. 2 would not be entitled for any backwages as ordered by learned Single Judge.

Services of the private respondent No. 2 shall be treated as continuous service from the date of his appointment till date of his superannuation. Private respondent shall be entitled for all the retiral benefits of his employment.

All the benefits shall be granted to the private respondent No. 2 by the appellant as well as by the State authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with interest, as per the prevailing policy in such cases.

If the amount is not paid within a period of eight weeks, the appellant as well as respondent authority shall pay the entire amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till it is actually paid.”

6. A perusal of the aforesaid direction shows that the back wages granted to the respondent no. 2 were set aside and the appellant as well as the State were directed to pay retiral dues to the respondent No. 2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the State as well as the appellant filed Review Petitions.⁹ [Miscellaneous Civil Application Number 01 of 2022 and Miscellaneous Civil Application Number 01 of 2023]. The review filed by the State was allowed vide order dated 21.04.2023 and it was directed that the appellant shall be liable to pay the retiral dues. The order as modified is extracted below:

“7. We do recollect that the p